4 ms·

>you can get radicalised online Great. Ted Kaczynski and a host of other malfeasants were radicalized through books and philosophy but we didnt turn public lib

>you can get radicalised online Great. Ted Kaczynski and a host of other malfeasants were radicalized through books and philosophy but we didnt turn public libraries into listening posts or start banning books wholesale. since theres no tangible KPI it can also be argued most netizens do not get radicalized online. the best defense against radicalization is education and open discussion. prevention, instead of detection. > you can get involved in phishing and ransomware and crypto rug-pulls and other cybercrime that wouldn't exist without technology. confidence art is a tale as old as time itself. that somehow because criminal activity takes place online I am supposed to hand a duplicate key to all my locks over to the state is a pretty weak argument.

admax88qqq 2y ago
Your moral outrage is not a convincing argument to those who would consider the authorities having a master key. Technology _does_ give criminals and terrorists new avenues and techniques to commit harm. If you want to convince people who think "well I have nothing to hide from the authorities and I'm scared of terrorists so I'd prefer authorities be able to read what they need to keep me safe" then you need a stronger argument that acknowledges how technology also enables nefarious ones. Because ultimately those are the people you have to convince, as there's a lot of them and they're ready to vote in favour. Moral outrage just gets those of us who agree nodding along.
- nimbius 2y ago
  id argue no, ultimately the voice of cowardice and ignorance does not deserve equal vote. A child understands a kitchen stove, but isnt given wholesale authority to ban them when theyre burned. people who cannot understand the implications of security outside of rare events and pop culture should not be invited to participate in the legislation of its outcome. its how you wind up with things like the TSA. i acquiesce the reality of democracy is something entirely different though.
  - admax88qqq 2y ago
    > acquiesce the reality of democracy is something entirely different though. aye there's the rub
red_admiral 2y ago
I think you missed the main point of my argument. I am not, in the post, claiming either that we should or should not create a magical duplicate skeleton key. I am claiming that a rigorous argument against creating such a key would have to take into account online crime as it exists today, and argue why we still shouldn't attempt to create a back-door marked "good guys only". There are many forms this argument could take: that the back-door would be useless for its intended purpose; that the harm would outweigh the benefits; that it would be unconstitutional etc. etc. The one argument I will not accept _against_ a back-door is that online crime is not a real problem. This just hands the pro-back-door community a massive stick to beat the other side with. By the way, > but we didnt turn public libraries into listening posts As far as I know, my local library doesn't have Al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine, nor The Anarchist's Cookbook. I haven't checked for sure though, just in case it is in fact a listening post - people have landed on no-fly lists for stupid reasons before now. (Weirdly enough, during the Cold War, Switzerland quite officially published a book called Total Resistance (Der Totale Widerstand) and made it available in at least some public libraries. It was a basically a manual of "how to become a ~~terrorist~~ resistance fighter if the Soviets invade".) > confidence art is a tale as old as time itself That is entirely true, but it seems to me there's a lot more of it around since the internet made it a lot easier to get in the business.

admax88qqq 2y ago

Your moral outrage is not a convincing argument to those who would consider the authorities having a master key. Technology _does_ give criminals and terrorists new avenues and techniques to commit harm. If you want to convince people who think "well I have nothing to hide from the authorities and I'm scared of terrorists so I'd prefer authorities be able to read what they need to keep me safe" then you need a stronger argument that acknowledges how technology also enables nefarious ones. Because ultimately those are the people you have to convince, as there's a lot of them and they're ready to vote in favour. Moral outrage just gets those of us who agree nodding along.

nimbius 2y ago
id argue no, ultimately the voice of cowardice and ignorance does not deserve equal vote. A child understands a kitchen stove, but isnt given wholesale authority to ban them when theyre burned. people who cannot understand the implications of security outside of rare events and pop culture should not be invited to participate in the legislation of its outcome. its how you wind up with things like the TSA. i acquiesce the reality of democracy is something entirely different though.
- admax88qqq 2y ago
  > acquiesce the reality of democracy is something entirely different though. aye there's the rub

red_admiral 2y ago

I think you missed the main point of my argument. I am not, in the post, claiming either that we should or should not create a magical duplicate skeleton key. I am claiming that a rigorous argument against creating such a key would have to take into account online crime as it exists today, and argue why we still shouldn't attempt to create a back-door marked "good guys only". There are many forms this argument could take: that the back-door would be useless for its intended purpose; that the harm would outweigh the benefits; that it would be unconstitutional etc. etc. The one argument I will not accept _against_ a back-door is that online crime is not a real problem. This just hands the pro-back-door community a massive stick to beat the other side with. By the way, > but we didnt turn public libraries into listening posts As far as I know, my local library doesn't have Al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine, nor The Anarchist's Cookbook. I haven't checked for sure though, just in case it is in fact a listening post - people have landed on no-fly lists for stupid reasons before now. (Weirdly enough, during the Cold War, Switzerland quite officially published a book called Total Resistance (Der Totale Widerstand) and made it available in at least some public libraries. It was a basically a manual of "how to become a ~~terrorist~~ resistance fighter if the Soviets invade".) > confidence art is a tale as old as time itself That is entirely true, but it seems to me there's a lot more of it around since the internet made it a lot easier to get in the business.